WILL TEAMS BEGIN TO DIRECT PLAYER ENDORSEMENT OPPORTUNITIES?

The Orioles have contested a PepsiCo campaign featuring
players Rafael Palmeiro, Brady Anderson and Jeffrey Hammonds
citing a section of all players' contracts which gives teams
the right to approve endorsements made during the season,
according to Jerry Crasnick of BLOOMBERG BUSINESS NEWS.
While Pepsi spent $50M to become MLB's official soft drink
from '97-2001, the Orioles have a partnership with Coca-Cola
that could be worth as much as $2M a year. The O's have
cited Paragraph 3C of the players' contracts which states
that teams' consent in marketing matters "shall not be
withheld except in the reasonable interests of the club or
professional baseball." MLBPA officials said the clause has
"never been used to prevent a player from doing an
endorsement." PepsiCo spokesperson Jon Harris said that the
enforcement of Paragraph 3C doesn't hurt "either of the cola
companies, but the players and the sport." Coca-Cola
spokesperson Scott Jacobson said that in filing their
grievance, the Orioles are protecting a relationship with a
corporate partner: "It's difficult to be a sponsor like Coke
and invest in a property, then have players go off and do
what they want." Crasnick adds that some agents believe the
Baltimore dispute "could eventually lead to more verbiage in
player contracts." Walt Disney, owners of the Angels, has
already inserted specific language in contracts that forbid
players from endorsing a product in an Angels uniform without
the club's consent (BLOOMBERG/STAR-TELEGRAM, 5/7).
COLA WARS: PepsciCo filed an antitrust complaint against
Coca-Cola yesterday, charging it with using "illegal strong-
arm tactics to keep restaurants and other retail customers
from pouring Pepsi" (ATLANTA CONSTITUTION, 5/8).